Supreme Court Strikes Down Chhattisgarh Rent Control Act Provision Granting Direct Appeal to Itself

Constitution Bench Rules State Legislature Exceeded Powers by Providing Statutory Appeal to Supreme Court; Presidential Assent Cannot Validate Ultra Vires Law

In a landmark decision dated December 10, 2019, a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court of India, comprising Justices Arun Mishra, Indira Banerjee, Vineet Saran, M.R. Shah, and S. Ravindra Bhat, declared Section 13(2) of the Chhattisgarh Rent Control Act, 2011, unconstitutional and ultra vires the Constitution of India. The provision had allowed for a direct statutory appeal from the Rent Control Tribunal to the Supreme Court, bypassing the High Courts.

The case originated from an eviction order passed by the Rent Control Authority and confirmed by the Rent Control Tribunal in Raipur. The appellant, Rajendra Diwan, challenged the maintainability of a direct appeal to the Supreme Court under Section 13(2) of the Rent Control Act. The Court referred the matter to a Constitution Bench due to the substantial constitutional questions involved regarding legislative competence and jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.

The core issue before the Bench was whether the Chhattisgarh State Legislature had the competence to enact a provision conferring direct appellate jurisdiction on the Supreme Court from a State Rent Control Tribunal. The State Legislature enacted the Rent Control Act under Entry 18 of List II (State List) of the Seventh Schedule, which empowers States to legislate on land-related matters including tenancy and rent.

However, the Constitution allocates exclusive power to Parliament over the constitution, organisation, jurisdiction, and powers of the Supreme Court under Entry 77 of List I (Union List). Additionally, Entries 65 of the State List and 46 of the Concurrent List restrict States from legislating on jurisdiction and powers of courts except the Supreme Court. The Court held that Section 13(2) of the Rent Control Act, which provided for direct appeals to the Supreme Court, was beyond the legislative competence of the State Legislature.

The Court emphasized that while Article 136 of the Constitution empowers the Supreme Court to grant special leave to appeal at its discretion, this does not amount to a statutory right of appeal. The provision under challenge purported to create a statutory second appeal to the Supreme Court, which is fundamentally different from discretionary power under Article 136. The Court underscored that appellate jurisdiction must be conferred by Parliament, not State Legislatures.

The State argued that the provision was valid as it received the assent of the President under Article 200 of the Constitution. The Court rejected this argument, clarifying that Presidential assent cannot validate a law that the Legislature is incompetent to enact. The assent merely resolves repugnancy issues but does not extend legislative competence beyond constitutional limits.

The Court also examined Article 138, which allows the Supreme Court to have further jurisdiction and powers as conferred by Parliament or by special agreement between the Government of India and State Governments. The Court found no special agreement or parliamentary law enabling such direct appeals from State tribunals to the Supreme Court.

The judgment referred to precedents including L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India, which held the writ jurisdiction of High Courts under Articles 226 and 227 as a basic feature of the Constitution, and K.K. Poonacha v. State of Karnataka, which clarified that Presidential assent does not cure legislative incompetence.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court struck down Section 13(2) of the Chhattisgarh Rent Control Act as ultra vires, clarifying that States cannot legislate to confer appellate jurisdiction on the Supreme Court. The decision reinforces the constitutional demarcation of legislative powers and preserves the exclusive domain of Parliament in regulating the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction.

This ruling serves as a significant precedent, reaffirming the constitutional scheme of separation of powers between the Union and States, especially concerning the Supreme Court’s appellate jurisdiction.

Statutory provisions

Chhattisgarh Rent Control Act, 2011 Section 13(2); Constitution of India Articles 124, 131, 132, 133, 134, 134A, 136, 138, 145, 200, 201, 245, 246, 262, 323B

Rajendra Diwan v. Pradeep Kumar Ranibala (SC)(Constitution Bench) : Law Finder Doc Id # 1640136